Response to Combination Chemotherapy With Paclitaxel/Ifosfamide/Platinum Versus Paclitaxel/Platinum for Patients With Metastatic, Recurrent, or Persistent Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix: A Retrospective Analysis

Objective Paclitaxel/ifosfamide/cisplatin triplet has shown a higher response rate than paclitaxel/cisplatin doublet, but the toxicity profile hindered the use of the triplet regimen. In this study, we adjusted the dosage of the triplet regimen and introduced carboplatin in cisplatin-intolerable patients. We tested the efficacy and toxicity of the modified triplet regimen in patients with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer who were treated between 2003 and 2015 at Samsung Medical Center. Response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity of paclitaxel/ifosfamide/platinum (TIP) and paclitaxel/platinum (TP) were compared. Results The overall response rate of TIP was significantly higher than that of TP (52.7% vs 36.4%, P = 0.031). In the TP group, response rate was higher in patients with progression-free interval longer than 12 months ( P = 0.028) and those with squamous cell histology ( P = 0.028). In TIP group, patients with older than 50 years ( P = 0.017), progression-free interval longer than 12 months ( P = 0.046), and squamous cell carcinoma histology ( P < 0.001) showed higher response rates; but TIP showed higher response on all occasions. Median OS and median PFS were similar for TP and TIP (OS, 22.43 months vs 18.5 months, P = 0.44; PFS, 6.37 months vs 8.3 months , P = 0.48). Conclusions Paclitaxel/ifosfamide/platinum showed a higher response rate than TP in patients with recurrent cervical cancer without an increase in severe complications. Considering the high response rate, TIP may be an option for persistent or recurrent cervical cancer.